W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2013

Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:38:27 -0800
Message-ID: <51239C73.3050905@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
In addition, the lack of a "fictional" designation does not mean that 
the thing is "real." There are a lot of ways to say fictional without 
declaring something to be a fictional character.

LCSH uses "fictional character" but these are also coded as 650 and not 
600 in MARC data. So "fictional character" is really for display since 
650 makes it a topical term, not a personal name. Then again, that 
library data focuses on "name" and not "person" is another issue, but 
Tweety Pie is a topic:

150 	__ |a Tweety Pie (Fictitious character)
450 	__ |a Pie, Tweety (Fictitious character)

(I LOVE the Pie comma Tweety! Subject catalogers DO have a sense of 
humor :-))

Where I see some additional difficulty (but perhaps additional need) is 
in fiction writing that uses real persons as characters, as in Don 
deLillo's Libra, a book with Lee Harvey Oswald as the main character.


Is that particular Oswald a fictional character? LCSH fortunately allows 
you to say that it is a real person with fictional treatment:

600	10	 |a Oswald, Lee Harvey  |v Fiction.

So whether or not you declare someone or something to BE fictional, we 
should also recognize that certain treatments imply fictional-ness, 
although none of this will be 100%.


On 2/19/13 7:26 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> On the other hand I would like to stress that the current proposal offers the option to mark an entity as a "fictional" one via additionalType. It nicely delegates any statement at the schema.org level on what entity types are fictional and which ones aren't to the user publishing markup.
> Of course, resulting statements from using the attribute may be regarded as offensive, but they are then individual statements, which, in a free society, may happen to be offensive. You cannot stop anybody from making respective statements in HTML on the Web either, so there is no new problem.
> Martin
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>> As I understand it, the BBC's internal archive classification scheme wrestled with precisely this issue  in the end it settled on 'people', 'fictional people' and 'religious entities', with some fairly clear guidelines about what to do if there was doubt about which of latter two somewhere should sit (and all three were considered mutually exclusive). At least then the consumer of the data can deal with the information as it sees fit.
>> I'll readily admit it's by no means an easy thing to settle, however: what about real people appearing 'as themselves' in a fictional work? The person themselves is as real as you or I, but the events in which they participate are fictional. I don't think we ever quite solved that one in the archive classifications.
>> M.
>> On Tue 2013-Feb-19, at 15:00, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Not only is it slippery, but potentially offensive.  As I think over the
>>> list of names described as fictional in WorldCat Identities, I run into
>>> polite variants.  "Deity" for instance.  Is Krishna "fictional"?  We
>>> have his as a "Hindu deity".  Using this markup, are we going to mark
>>> them as fictional, or have to propose another property?
>>> Looking at the list of most frequently occurring words for our Subject
>>> names, I see that the top one is not "fictitious", but "character".
>>> That looks to me like the library community has made a distinction
>>> between them over the years.  Are we going to combine them here?  (Yes,
>>> I know this is better discussed on the Bibframe list, but the subject
>>> came up here.)  Other top terms include: deity, legendary, mythology,
>>> biblical, and imaginary.  As you can see, these are words to dance
>>> around the use of "fictional".
>>> Honestly, I'm not sure where to come down here.  I like the proposal for
>>> a fictional attribute.  I'm just not sure that we can give clear
>>> guidance on where it should be used.
>>> Ralph
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ed.summers@gmail.com [mailto:ed.summers@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ed
>>> Summers
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:29 AM
>>> To: Wallis,Richard
>>> Cc: Michael Hopwood; Dawson, Laura; Martin Hepp; Thad Guidry; Web
>>> Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
>>> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>>> I agree with Martin about "fictional" being a pretty slippery slope.
>>> But I am kind of curious about how people who are advocating for
>>> FictionalThing anticipate it getting used.
>>> //Ed
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Richard Wallis
>>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>>> In pure data terms I partly agree with you - there is no difference
>>>> between the description of a real or fictional thing.  Except one of
>>>> them has the attribute of being fictional.
>>>> In describing an identity, especially from the world of creative
>>>> works, there is an obvious difference between real and fictional
>>>> things - which we humans are interested in and need to describe.
>>>> For example the first line from Sir John Falstaff's Wikipedia entry
>>> reads:
>>>> "Sir John Falstaff is a fictional character who appears in ...."
>>>> It is fine for him to have an ISNI, something that could link to a
>>>> description that indicates that he is fictional.
>>>> The fact that James White, used the same string of characters as a
>>>> pseudonym is an attribute of the descriptions of each of them - not an
>>>> attribute of the name itself.
>>>> This proposal came out of need to describe characters, or other
>>> fictional
>>>> things, in film/tv metadata.   A need that I believe is more generic
>>> than
>>>> that focussed requirement.
>>>> ~Richard.
>>>> On 19/02/2013 13:32, "Michael Hopwood" <michael@editeur.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hmmm. I've followed this fascinating thread at a distance but I
>>>>> thought it's a reasonable point to chime in; it's not so much the
>>>>> edge cases, it's that in this context, everything is an edge case.
>>>>> In all the relevant ontologies and schemas I've dealt with, there
>>>>> simply is no fundamental difference; for example, Sir John Falstaff
>>>>> has an ISNI, although he's fictional; he's also a literary pseudonym
>>> of James White...
>>>>> The reason for this is that in data, you don't describe actual people
>>>>> (maybe FOAF or VCARD are exceptions), you describe public identities.
>>>>> You can only tell the real ones from the fictional from their
>>>>> relationships; their properties are the same.
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dawson, Laura [mailto:Laura.Dawson@bowker.com]
>>>>> Sent: 19 February 2013 12:50
>>>>> To: Martin Hepp
>>>>> Cc: Thad Guidry; Richard Wallis; Web Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
>>>>> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>>>>> There are many edge cases, but I think there are enough
>>>>> straightforward cases to warrant the attempt.
>> --
>> Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space
>> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
>> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, Pacific Quay, Glasgow, G51 1DA
>> Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
>> -----------------------------
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
>> If you have received it in
>> error, please delete it from your system.
>> Do not use, copy or disclose the
>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
>> immediately.
>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
>> sent or received.
>> Further communication will signify your consent to
>> this.
>> -----------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>           http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 15:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:53 UTC